Motiram Nayanna Mitre v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

*1*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1937 OF 2023 MOTIRAM NAYANNA MITRE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms.Jayashree Nawale i/by Shri V.D. Salunke AGP for Respondents 1 and 2/State : Shri S.G. Sangle ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE :- 20th February, 2023 Per Court :- 1.

The petitioner is aggrieved that respondent No.3 (Pralhad Maitre) has been granted the validity certificate as "Beldar-2", Nomadic Tribe-B category. Rest of the family members are belonging to "Mala-39", Scheduled Caste category. Because of such grant of validity certificates, contra evidence is noticed by the committee, due to which, other relatives, who belong to "Mala" community, are facing an adverse situation since the case of respondent No.3 is cited as being belonging to

*2* "Beldar-2" community.

2.

The petitioner has addressed the District Research Officer of respondent No.2/Committee to investigate into this matter since the grant of "Beldar-2", N.T.-B, validity certificate to respondent No.3, is posing problems to rest of the relatives, who claim to be belonging to "Mala-39", Scheduled Caste category.

3.

The learned AGP submits, on the basis of the record, that Amit Mitre son of Prakash and grandson of Ramesh, has been granted the validity certificate for "Beldar-2". Daughter of Pralhad, namely, Janveer and son of Pralhad, namely, Anveer, have been granted the validity certificates for "Beldar-2" community.

4.

Considering the above and the fact that the petitioner has tendered the representation dated 18.10.2022 to the District Research Officer of respondent No.2, we direct respondent No.2 to consider the said representation and initiate appropriate steps as may be permissible, by following the due procedure as is prescribed in law. Needless to state, all the stakeholders are to be granted an opportunity of hearing. We make it clear that we have not gone into the disputed questions as

*3* raised by the Petitioner.

5.

This Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed off. kps (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)